Well we write 12 like this: 10

It’s easy

Miss you with the greatest passion

No, it’s observation. An experiment involves manipulating an independent variable while controlling other variables. There’s none of that in space, not counting the ISS and Apollo. That said, you can still test hypotheses using observation. And that’s equally true in both astronomy and in social sciences.

That’s irrelevant. Astronomy and polsci can both only test their hypotheses through observation.

What are soft sciences supposed to do when experimental methods are either impractical or unethical?

Same thing astronomy did.

Hey genius, if you need experimentation in order for a field to be a real science, then explain how astronomy is a science.

It’s mainly called social science in my country.

Same with Astronomy.

So you’re saying you can’t write readable code while drunk

The world of matter is an illusion created by the mind. The true reality of the world is a network of conscious agents. Everything really is alive.

Hey, we still laugh at scientists who propose good ideas

Taxonomy is a conspiracy invented by neckbeards so they could “um ackshually” us when we call a bug a bug.

“Wow,” says a puddle in a ditch. “This ditch is shaped exactly like me. If it weren’t for the ditch’s precise shape, I couldn’t have formed here. I’m really lucky.” The puddle, of course, has never seen a puddle in a different ditch and never realised that puddles come in many shapes.

Watch Don’t Look Up. It’s about an asteroid heading for earth in our current political climate

If I built a robot pigeon that can fly, scavenge for crumbs, sing matings calls, and approximate sex with other pigeons, is that an AGI? It can’t read or write or talk or compose music or draw or paint or do math or use the scientific method or debate philosophy. But it can do everything a pigeon can. Is it general or not? And if it’s not, what makes human intelligence general in a way that pigeon intelligence isn’t?

I still think AI has its place as a useful term in video games development

Humans are easier to indoctrinate than sapient robots, because human biases are predictable.

Fascist politician: the Jews are stealing your money to cause the downfall of your race! They’re even breeding your children with black people to destroy you!

Human reaction: yeah, that makes sense

Robot reaction: …why tho?

Robots may still have biases, but they probably won’t be exactly the same as a human’s. I doubt a robot would care for a “think of the children” argument

And who decides what a true bug is, huh? Bullshit pseudoscientific taxonomists?

I don’t see any funny letters here

This is soulism